Eric Garner Case

[Caustic Burno]

The new politically correct term is not looting. It is now known as undocumented shopping.

That is richer than three feet up a bull's ass.

 

[Jogeephus]

PS: I consider myself and I hope I am correct to do so, a non-racist person. I have had and continue to have numerous associations with people of color. My views as represented here are not based on race. I would have the same view if Mr. Garner was caucasian.

I agree and echo your statements. Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law but at the same time we all have a responsibility to act civilly and obey the law in our society. Its all about equality. I think its wrong to treat someone differently than another based on skin color and like you say you would have the same opinion if he were a caucasian as would I. He is the one that escalated matters so he owns the responsibility for the results of his actions. Its travesty for sure but its of his own making because it didn't have to be this way.

I think it is discriminatory to treat him any different and I think its discriminatory for people to think he should be held at a different standard than a Caucasian or any other race. I also think affirmative action is discriminatory. I view affirmative action and these recent fiascos as extreme cases of racism. Not from the standpoint of blacks being mistreated but from the standpoint that by some wanting these standards of civility to be lowered because of race implies that blacks are not as smart as other races. They cannot help themselves or they are not civilized enough to be treated equally so society must lower its standards for them. This is utter nonsense and this is not what MLK gave his life for! This is not equality and if I were a member of the black community I would be insulted if society viewed me in that light.

 

[slick4591]

Slick,
How would one know tho--what charge to indict that ham sanwich with?
It seems to me, that sort of leeway, left solely up to the jury, would mean the jurists would have to know an inordinately large amount of law and legalese in order to be able to decide on their own, what charge to consider. Some of our jurists (and I'll be generous) were borderline illiterate. Most of our cases were drug related-burglary, robbery, manufacture of drugs, intent to distribute, assault, car theft type crimes. If we hadn't been charged before hand (given guidance by prosecutor) most of us, myself included, wouldn't have had a clue exactly which charge would fit the testimony we heard.

The ham sandwich comes from a statement as to how GJ's can be easily led by a prosecutor. Can't say every state is the same, but I know here each member is allowed to ask questions of witnesses and prosecutors. They can even open up the penal code if they want. Every charge has to be supported by the elements (culpable mental states; knowingly, intentionally, recklessly etc...). I know that this is not something the average person knows, but they can and should given the task they are sworn to.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Slick,
How would one know tho--what charge to indict that ham sanwich with?
It seems to me, that sort of leeway, left solely up to the jury, would mean the jurists would have to know an inordinately large amount of law and legalese in order to be able to decide on their own, what charge to consider. Some of our jurists (and I'll be generous) were borderline illiterate. Most of our cases were drug related-burglary, robbery, manufacture of drugs, intent to distribute, assault, car theft type crimes. If we hadn't been charged before hand (given guidance by prosecutor) most of us, myself included, wouldn't have had a clue exactly which charge would fit the testimony we heard.

The ham sandwich comes from a statement as to how GJ's can be easily led by a prosecutor. Can't say every state is the same, but I know here each member is allowed to ask questions of witnesses and prosecutors. They can even open up the penal code if they want. Every charge has to be supported by the elements (culpable mental states; knowingly, intentionally, recklessly etc...). I know that this is not something the average person knows, but they can and should given the task they are sworn to.

Everyone should have to sit on a grand jury in their lifetime.
Enlightening experience.
Just pray you never get picked for a federal grand jury.

 

[boondocks]

I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.

CB and Inyati,
I'm not saying a federal prosecutor should handle all criminal matters. (You do realize that you have a federal prosecutor assigned to your federal judicial district? Who do you think prosecutes federal crimes, such as interstate drug trafficking, RICO, etc?). I'm not suggesting a "new" layer of anything, just that in cases of possible conflict of interest, a special prosecutor should be appointed, or a federal one. In some instances, there is just too much at stake for a prosecutor who is beholden to the local police. Federal prosecutors are also usually quite high-caliber. And I think that if an unarmed man is choked to death by cops for selling loose smokes, and those cops stand around for 6 minutes while he dies, offering no assistance, then we have a much bigger problem than "federal intrusion."

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.

CB and Inyati,
I'm not saying a federal prosecutor should handle all criminal matters. (You do realize that you have a federal prosecutor assigned to your federal judicial district? Who do you think prosecutes federal crimes, such as interstate drug trafficking, RICO, etc?). I'm not suggesting a "new" layer of anything, just that in cases of possible conflict of interest, a special prosecutor should be appointed, or a federal one. In some instances, there is just too much at stake for a prosecutor who is beholden to the local police. Federal prosecutors are also usually quite high-caliber. And I think that if an unarmed man is choked to death by cops for selling loose smokes, and those cops stand around for 6 minutes while he dies, offering no assistance, then we have a much bigger problem than "federal intrusion."

And a federal prosecutor is beholden to the federal government and not the local citizens. Your premise is lacking and would take further power away from the people. An act against the powers retained by the people and secured by the founding documents.

Don't think that Federal prosecutors are politically swayed or corrupt?

http://www.teaparty.org/bombshell-revel ... MA.twitter

Judicial Watch) – Judicial Watch today released internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner had been in contact with DOJ officials about the possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt entities two full years before what the IRS conceded was its "absolutely inappropriate" 2012 targeting of the organizations. According to the newly obtained documents, Lerner met with top Obama DOJ Election Crimes Branch officials as early as October 2010.

"These new documents dramatically show how the Justice Department is up to its neck in the IRS scandal and can't be trusted to investigate crimes associated with the IRS abuses that targeted Obama's critics. And it is of particular concern that the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, which would ordinarily investigate the IRS abuses, is now implicated in the IRS crimes.

The local governance should stay local. And most importantly, anything not specifically given to the federal government to govern, is under local authority be it state, county, city etc...

 

[Commercialfarmer]

There have been some good points made in this thread, and I've learned a few things as I generally do here.

As I said, I read some stuff about this case when it happened and haven't had time to look into the specifics of it again lately. I remember having some questions about the case (they may have been unfounded), but I do understand the need for police compliance and the danger it poses not just to the individual being detained but other around them and very much to the police doing their job.

I think often, people create their own problems. But I've seen some police officers sure provoke it as well.

I think not complying in a constitutionally sound situation is wrong and what comes about from it is the persons own doing.

I also think that you can't vote for a government body, or vote directly to create a black market situation for cigarettes and then be upset when authorities execute the law. I find the tax ridiculous myself, so I think that the voters are ultimately responsible for killing the guy.


More recently, I've also questioned how much police put themselves into situation that didn't need to be created in the first place.

I was sitting off a empty side street in a small town in Kansas last month. It was on a Monday night at 10:45 p.m. I had my interior lights on, looking at a map figuring out where I wanted to go. A police officer that had passed up and down the main street about 4 times in front of me decided that I was a danger to society. So he pulled around the block and came up behind me. He surprised me a little bit as I was focused on the map at the moment. Said he was concerned that someone might rear end me sitting there like that. Mind you, he was the only one I saw and I was in the grass off the road way- I might have even been trespassing on the businesses property. He asked what I was doing. I would have thought it was pretty evident with my orange game vest, additional attire, gun case and pointer growling at him from the back. But I told him I had been hunting and was looking at the map. After a bit more of him explaining that if I went down to the end of town I had already come from, and parked in the gas station parking lot where someone might actually hit me, backing out, it would be a safer situation for me. He asked if I would give him my ID (not license) so he could document out contact with his dispatcher.

It's a bs reason to run my license. He knows, I know it, but I don't know if he knows I know. What I do know is that he worded it carefully. I also know that since he didn't at least state a valid reason to actually stop me, giving him a real reason to demand my license be provided, I could have declined to provide it to him. I would have been well within my rights. What I also know, is had I done that, he would have created a reason on the spot to have contact. Pick one of a hundred- real or fabricated.

I did nothing to provoke his contact with me. I could have pulled over on the side of the main road, I didn't. I made a purposeful effort to move out of the flow of any traffic, which was none to begin with except he and I. But because he chose to contact me, for the sake of his curiosity, I could have within my rights inflamed the situation to point of problems- just by invoking my Constitutional rights.

That is the problem with police I see today. Many don't respect the right of privacy or the Constitutional rights of individuals to deny unreasonable searches. He didn't need to run my license. But if you stand up for those rights, you may have hell to pay. I had already hunted over 10 miles that day and just wanted the guy to leave me alone.

Had he had real concern that I would be rear ended in the grass and said so legitimately, I wouldn't have had a problem. Asking for my ID and taking it back to his car to run is an issue for me. He's not enforcing any laws.

So in the end, I guess my question is, had I not been compliant, would I have been in the wrong? And would I have been deserving of any ill fate brought about by not being compliant?

Curious on peoples take on this particular situation.

 

[boondocks]

There have been some good points made in this thread, and I've learned a few things as I generally do here.

As I said, I read some stuff about this case when it happened and haven't had time to look into the specifics of it again lately. I remember having some questions about the case (they may have been unfounded), but I do understand the need for police compliance and the danger it poses not just to the individual being detained but other around them and very much to the police doing their job.

I think often, people create their own problems. But I've seen some police officers sure provoke it as well.

I think not complying in a constitutionally sound situation is wrong and what comes about from it is the persons own doing.

I also think that you can't vote for a government body, or vote directly to create a black market situation for cigarettes and then be upset when authorities execute the law. I find the tax ridiculous myself, so I think that the voters are ultimately responsible for killing the guy.


More recently, I've also questioned how much police put themselves into situation that didn't need to be created in the first place.
[...]

So in the end, I guess my question is, had I not been compliant, would I have been in the wrong? And would I have been deserving of any ill fate brought about by not being compliant?

Curious on peoples take on this particular situation.

CF-there is Supreme Court precedent that you don't generally have to produce ID unless the cops have a reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in something criminal. Of course, that sounds good in theory but as a practical matter, if you refuse, their suspicions just got raised. Now, refusing to produce ID can't itself give them a reasonable suspicion to have asked you for it in the first place, and yet, if you look suspicious enough to the wrong cop, in the wrong place, on the wrong night...good luck to ya.

 

[inyati13]

I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.

CB and Inyati,
I'm not saying a federal prosecutor should handle all criminal matters. (You do realize that you have a federal prosecutor assigned to your federal judicial district? Who do you think prosecutes federal crimes, such as interstate drug trafficking, RICO, etc?). I'm not suggesting a "new" layer of anything, just that in cases of possible conflict of interest, a special prosecutor should be appointed, or a federal one. In some instances, there is just too much at stake for a prosecutor who is beholden to the local police. Federal prosecutors are also usually quite high-caliber. And I think that if an unarmed man is choked to death by cops for selling loose smokes, and those cops stand around for 6 minutes while he dies, offering no assistance, then we have a much bigger problem than "federal intrusion."

Boondocks, I worked in "public law" enforcement. To explain, google "Administrative Law". Administrative law is a branch of "public law". Most of my enforcement actions were adjudicated before an administrative law judge. In some cases involving a criminal act, the case was litigated in a criminal law jurisdiction. Other cases were litigated in a civil law jurisdiction. I have no experience with a federal prosecutor.

But one thing the US government is good at: TRAINING. I had regular training in case discovery, PRP searches, litigation, ENFORCEMENT, how to collect evidence to support enforcement actions, how to be a better witness, etc. I was required to take an enforcement refresher annually.

Our system is based on establishing deterrents to the commission of crimes and the violation of laws and regulations. Once the process goes to the prosecution/litigation phase, rarely is it pretty. Speeding laws are a deterrent to speeding but that does not keep people from speeding.

Consider the scrutiny this arrest is getting. Consider that the arrest is on video. In this age of technology and especially when an arrest involves a minority, it is going to be dissected by the layman. Folks like all of us here are going to provide our commentary, but it does not have the sanctification of due process of law.

Candidly, you made some statements above that demonstrates your bias (take that as opinion, none of us are without bias). Until the Garner case is litigated, I am not in agreement with some of your assertions. But let's leave that alone and go one step further. Even after cases are litigated, there is not a Divine Determination that the findings resulting from the litigation are "right or wrong". As you pointed out so aptly, a Jury gets it wrong. Like the O.J trial.

IMO : If Mr. Garner was a white man, we would not even know about this case. Until and if this case is thoroughly litigated, we are all blindly commenting in the dark. It was in that spirit that I provided the "scenario" above. I disagree with some of the commentary in this thread, for example, the "choke" hold part is not being characterized accurately, IMO. Only as a result of litigation will we know how the defense will present the "choke". If I were the defense, I would present it as restraint and for the purpose of getting Mr. Garner in a safe position; safe for him, the officers and the public. As you know, that is a right the defense has and they have the advantage of putting Officer Daniel Pantaleo on the stand to testify what he was doing and what his intentions were. It is not a determination of who is right and who is wrong. It is a determination of whether a Jury "finds" him "guilty" or "not guilty". IT JUST TAKES ONE TO SAY HE IS "NOT GUILTY".

 

[Caustic Burno]

There have been some good points made in this thread, and I've learned a few things as I generally do here.

As I said, I read some stuff about this case when it happened and haven't had time to look into the specifics of it again lately. I remember having some questions about the case (they may have been unfounded), but I do understand the need for police compliance and the danger it poses not just to the individual being detained but other around them and very much to the police doing their job.

I think often, people create their own problems. But I've seen some police officers sure provoke it as well.

I think not complying in a constitutionally sound situation is wrong and what comes about from it is the persons own doing.

I also think that you can't vote for a government body, or vote directly to create a black market situation for cigarettes and then be upset when authorities execute the law. I find the tax ridiculous myself, so I think that the voters are ultimately responsible for killing the guy.


More recently, I've also questioned how much police put themselves into situation that didn't need to be created in the first place.

I was sitting off a empty side street in a small town in Kansas last month. It was on a Monday night at 10:45 p.m. I had my interior lights on, looking at a map figuring out where I wanted to go. A police officer that had passed up and down the main street about 4 times in front of me decided that I was a danger to society. So he pulled around the block and came up behind me. He surprised me a little bit as I was focused on the map at the moment. Said he was concerned that someone might rear end me sitting there like that. Mind you, he was the only one I saw and I was in the grass off the road way- I might have even been trespassing on the businesses property. He asked what I was doing. I would have thought it was pretty evident with my orange game vest, additional attire, gun case and pointer growling at him from the back. But I told him I had been hunting and was looking at the map. After a bit more of him explaining that if I went down to the end of town I had already come from, and parked in the gas station parking lot where someone might actually hit me, backing out, it would be a safer situation for me. He asked if I would give him my ID (not license) so he could document out contact with his dispatcher.

It's a bs reason to run my license. He knows, I know it, but I don't know if he knows I know. What I do know is that he worded it carefully. I also know that since he didn't at least state a valid reason to actually stop me, giving him a real reason to demand my license be provided, I could have declined to provide it to him. I would have been well within my rights. What I also know, is had I done that, he would have created a reason on the spot to have contact. Pick one of a hundred- real or fabricated.

I did nothing to provoke his contact with me. I could have pulled over on the side of the main road, I didn't. I made a purposeful effort to move out of the flow of any traffic, which was none to begin with except he and I. But because he chose to contact me, for the sake of his curiosity, I could have within my rights inflamed the situation to point of problems- just by invoking my Constitutional rights.

That is the problem with police I see today. Many don't respect the right of privacy or the Constitutional rights of individuals to deny unreasonable searches. He didn't need to run my license. But if you stand up for those rights, you may have be nice to pay. I had already hunted over 10 miles that day and just wanted the guy to leave me alone.

Had he had real concern that I would be rear ended in the grass and said so legitimately, I wouldn't have had a problem. Asking for my ID and taking it back to his car to run is an issue for me. He's not enforcing any laws.

So in the end, I guess my question is, had I not been compliant, would I have been in the wrong? And would I have been deserving of any ill fate brought about by not being compliant?

Curious on peoples take on this particular situation.

One of my faults is I can get real bull headed over stuff like this.
You can beat the wrap sometimes but the ride is always there.
Had a similar incident in a shyt hole town in Texas.
One cop town the prick was the JP, Chief of Police and the Police Dept.
Before it was over with my State Rep and going to Austin we broke that little party up.

 

[inyati13]

I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.

CB and Inyati,
I'm not saying a federal prosecutor should handle all criminal matters. (You do realize that you have a federal prosecutor assigned to your federal judicial district? Who do you think prosecutes federal crimes, such as interstate drug trafficking, RICO, etc?). I'm not suggesting a "new" layer of anything, just that in cases of possible conflict of interest, a special prosecutor should be appointed, or a federal one. In some instances, there is just too much at stake for a prosecutor who is beholden to the local police. Federal prosecutors are also usually quite high-caliber. And I think that if an unarmed man is choked to death by cops for selling loose smokes, and those cops stand around for 6 minutes while he dies, offering no assistance, then we have a much bigger problem than "federal intrusion."

What evidence has been proferred to support your thinking that Mr. Garner was "choked to death" by cops? What evidence was proffered that the cops killed him because he was selling loose smokes? Has it been found that the cops killed Mr. Garner?

GB, presented references from the news that a Grand Jury billed NO on (1) 2nd degree Manslaughter and (2) Criminally negligent homicide. Granted these are not court documents so they may lack veracity, but are you of a mind that they would have billed NO, when you think he was deliberately choked to death by cops?

I understand you do not trust the local system of law enforcement because you think there is a conflict of interest of sorts, but these thoughts are over-the-top. Boondocks, I am not doing this to aggravate you or for me to appear like a know-it-all. I find your values probably to be closer to mine than most users. I want you to think about this. Please. You are a thinker I can tell.
I realize you used the word "if". But the inference is there.

 

[Caustic Burno]

This all lies on Mr Garner for resisting arrest and you will never change my mind.
Take the ride and fight the rap. It never works resisting.
Whole different ball of wax had he been on his own property better bring an arrest warrant then.

 

[Jogeephus]

So in the end, I guess my question is, had I not been compliant, would I have been in the wrong? And would I have been deserving of any ill fate brought about by not being compliant? Curious on peoples take on this particular situation.

IMO. No you wouldn't have been wrong. Stupid to do so but not wrong. And yes, you should expect him to drill you further. This is his job. Just like the police officer who saw Obama's buddy, the black professor who had locked himself out of his home and was seen trying to jimmy the front door open. Had this been me, I would expect nothing less than for the officer to stop and question what I was doing and had the racist professor acted civilly and explained the situation to the officer rather than turning the thing into a race issue the whole thing would have been over with in seconds. Instead it was turned into a national race fiasco. You were out of place and the officer was just checking to see if you were up to no good. That is their job isn't it?

Now had you gotten out of your car and called the officer a MF'ing pig and screamed at him that you know your rights and you ain't got to do it, things would have been stepped up a notch. I imagine had you kept escalating things with verbal abuse and unruly behavior things could have progressed even further to where you either got to chew on a Maglite or even get to dance with Miss Taser. But why on earth would you not cooperate with the officer when he is only doing his job? I am sure you don't disrespect your hostess at a restaurant when they ask you your name. Had you been broke down and needed a jump you would have been thankful - or should be. But I imagine had you needed a jump start and he drove past you you'd be bytching because he left you stranded and it is his job to serve and protect.

 

[ifarm26]

I work in law enforcement as my "off farm job" and lots of folks never see the good side of what is done by law enforcement. If the "media," and I put about as much faith in them as I do a rabid skunk, would shed light on the good and not the bad, we probably would not be seeing all of this. Also I was taught from a young age if you have not done anything wrong and someone with authority asks you to do something be nice and do it. Show respect get respect. Since these incidents have happened I have seen a shift in the perception of young people that they can do what they want and law enforcement can't do a thing about it. Disrespect is becoming the norm.
And for the comment above, where the cop had no right to ask for your identification, well you are sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle at 10:45 on the shoulder or right of way of a public street, then yes you must be a licensed driver and you must in my state produce a license to confirm that. Just as if you go through a license check, I can ask to see your license because you are on a public street or highway. By the way I have found two alzheimers or dementia patients that have gotten behind the wheel and not known how to get back home simply by stopping behind a car at night on the side of the road. I got no media attention for returning them safely! Imagine that!
Most law enforcement officers do have the good of society in mind. There are bad eggs in every job that involves interaction with the public.

 

[gimpyrancher]

ifarm26,

> If the "media," and I put about as much faith in them as I do a rabid skunk,

While you don't want us to judge all LE in the same light, you do that above. LEOs are just like the rest of us.

> would shed light on the good and not the bad, we probably would not be seeing all of this.

Corporate media at it's best. Why blame the citizens?

> Also I was taught from a young age if you have not done anything wrong and someone with authority asks you to do something be nice and do it. Show respect get respect.

Yet, the officers that approach your car today are not the officers that used to approach my car 40 years ago. Now they look more like military than the regular (cops) guys who used to approach.

> Since these incidents have happened I have seen a shift in the perception of young people that they can do what they want and law enforcement can't do a thing about it. Disrespect is becoming the norm.

As recent news shows, this goes both ways. Death on the street for selling a single cigarette without paying the government "their" due is not what we faced years ago. So is it only the youth of today that have lost respect? I don't want to paint all LEOs with the same brush. But they should't paint any citizen with such a broad brush as to suspend any life for such a minor event.

> And for the comment above, where the cop had no right to ask for your identification, well you are sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle at 10:45 on the shoulder or right of way of a public street, then yes you must be a licensed driver and you must in my state produce a license to confirm that.

Now it's suspicious just because someone is out in public in a car? It appears that LEOs feel that every person is suspicious just because they are out in public. Is it just the public's attitude that has changed?

> Just as if you go through a license check, I can ask to see your license because you are on a public street or highway.

I guess you and your department haven't had the time to read many of the last decade's court decisions yet. I believe the Supreme Court has a different opinion on this.

> By the way I have found two alzheimers or dementia patients that have gotten behind the wheel and not known how to get back home simply by stopping behind a car at night on the side of the road. I got no media attention for returning them safely! Imagine that!

Okay, let me say, Good Boy! Thank you for doing your job. How often do you go out of your way to thank the people that help you and wait on you everyday?

> Most law enforcement officers do have the good of society in mind.

But those aren't the officers that hit the news media. That is not the public's fault. Stop blaming us.

> There are bad eggs in every job that involves interaction with the public.

Meaning, not every cop is good but we shouldn't make a big deal about the bad LEOs because it makes all of you look bad? Sounds a lot like what the public is saying to you.

I'm lucky, I live in a small town with regular guys and gals that are LEOs. They live in our neighborhoods. It's rare when we have issues here. They don't shoot people or kill people for minor offenses. They are respectful also.

Would I consent to a car search because they asked? No. Would I be as happy with them and volunteer to be detained to "check my ID" because I'm walking on a public street returning from my mailbox? No. Would I be as happy with our great department if they started acting the fools like some in some departments? No.

We need to remember that they are more likely to die driving to and from work than on the job. When they start claiming that they are in such a dangerous profession, I loose respect for them because they are just trying to puff up their own chests. Being married to a minority, I see the difference. Not being a minority I see things differently.

PS: A final issue with LEOs in this day and age. Having an Autistic son, I fear you for him more than you will hopefully ever understand.

 

[slick4591]

Some people sure have lots of critiques, but they never offer solutions.

 

[Hook]

Well, when you hit the trifecta: minority marriage, handicapped, hippie in Oregon .....what do you expect

 

[gimpyrancher]

Some people sure have lots of critiques, but they never offer solutions.

Only solutions necessary; Deport all Tea Party Republicans as Anti-American inhabitants. Deport all political party "leaders" to Mexico, in both parties. Make all overseas Multi-National corporations pay their American Taxes on world wide income. A flat tax on income with no tax breaks. Invalidate all foreign Trade agreements. Bring back American pride, jobs and the middle class. Get rid of Two Party Politics (really only one now), make our elected officials unpaid volunteers for one term only. Close the Supreme Court and remove all their benefits. Bring back Unions. Implement proportional representation. Implement a Carbon Tax. Hold corporations accountable. Dissolve corporations that do not benefit America and let their investors pay the price.

Shall I continue?

 

[M5farm]

Some people sure have lots of critiques, but they never offer solutions.

Only solutions necessary; Deport all Tea Party Republicans as Anti-American inhabitants. Deport all political party "leaders" to Mexico, in both parties. Make all overseas Multi-National corporations pay their American Taxes on world wide income. A flat tax on income with no tax breaks. Invalidate all foreign Trade agreements. Bring back American pride, jobs and the middle class. Get rid of Two Party Politics (really only one now), make our elected officials unpaid volunteers for one term only. Close the Supreme Court and remove all their benefits. Bring back Unions. Implement proportional representation. Implement a Carbon Tax. Hold corporations accountable. Dissolve corporations that do not benefit America and let their investors pay the price.

Shall I continue?

You make me laugh, Unions are part of the down fall of America. Your America looks like a third world Country and your pic in your avatar is fitting.

 

[slick4591]

Some people sure have lots of critiques, but they never offer solutions.

Only solutions necessary; Deport all Tea Party Republicans as Anti-American inhabitants. Deport all political party "leaders" to Mexico, in both parties. Make all overseas Multi-National corporations pay their American Taxes on world wide income. A flat tax on income with no tax breaks. Invalidate all foreign Trade agreements. Bring back American pride, jobs and the middle class. Get rid of Two Party Politics (really only one now), make our elected officials unpaid volunteers for one term only. Close the Supreme Court and remove all their benefits. Bring back Unions. Implement proportional representation. Implement a Carbon Tax. Hold corporations accountable. Dissolve corporations that do not benefit America and let their investors pay the price.

Shall I continue?

You don't like the Tea party because they want the freeloaders to go to work and quit sucking the gubmint teat. Mexico? C'mon now. Surely you mean somewhere like Afghanistan, Libya or Syria! Bring back all oversea jobs to American soil. Gives us back the taxes and jobs. Makes all politicians wear sponsorship uniforms so we know who's who. Yep, unions need to be flushed. Gotta have the Supremes because there has to be a body to shut down our current prez. I agree on the corporation part.